Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

[Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>]

Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu) wrote:
> Christoph Rohland writes: 
> > I am quite open about naming, but "shm" is not appropriate any more 
> > since the fs does a lot more than shared memory. Solaris calles this 
> > "tmpfs" but I did not want to 'steal' their name and I also do not 
> > think that it's a very good name. 
> 
> Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call 
> your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the 
> interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name. 
> 
> Don't think of it as just "for /tmp". It is for temporary storage. 
> The name is a reminder that you shouldn't store archives in tmpfs. 
> 
> Again for compatibility, Sun's size option would be useful. 

I agree with Albert; if it does the same thing as Sun's tmpfs,
let's call it tmpfs, and use the same options.

- Dan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/